BREAKING: Supreme Court to Hear New Abortion Case

BREAKING: Supreme Court to Hear New Abortion Case November 13, 2015

On Friday, November 13, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the first new abortion case it’s considered since 2007. That was the year when the Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, ruled 5-4 to uphold a federal ban on partial-birth abortions.

Clothes HangerThis time, though, the case in question was brought by abortion advocates, who are challenging the constitutionality of Texas’ law requiring abortion clinics to comply with safety standards required at other medical facilities.

The Republican-backed law, which has not yet gone into effect, contains protections which are standard at other ambulatory surgical centers, such as doorways wide enough to permit a gurney to pass through.  Abortion practitioners must have admitting privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles–just like real doctors–so that they can care for their patients should there be complications requiring hospitalization.

And what do the self-described defenders of women have to say about this?

Are they pleased that women seeking to end an unplanned pregnancy will be assured of a proper facility and a licensed, trained physician?

Are they shocked by squalor in facilities which have inadequate disposal systems, and which keep aborted fetal remains in the staff refrigerator?

Are they concerned that there may be no equipment to treat a woman who suffers a medical emergency?

No–The liberals for whom the coat hanger symbolized “brutal, back-alley abortions” in the years before Roe v. Wade are today rallying to protect women’s right to kill their children in any old fleabag facility they choose.

Of the 44 abortion clinics operating in the state of Texas in 2014, more than half have closed, as safety restrictions have been implemented. Only 19 remain open, and the National Abortion Federation protests that there could be only 10 clinics remaining in the state, if the new restrictions are fully implemented.

That means that 34 (more than 77%) of the clinics which operated in 2014 did not meet basic safety standards.

I am pro-life. I oppose abortion, which is the killing of an innocent human being, at any time in any facility.

But for those of you who support so-called “women’s rights” and advocate for child-killing in the womb when it’s convenient, I have a question:


Why wouldn’t the National Abortion Federation want to guarantee the highest level of safety for its abortion-minded customers?

Why wouldn’t the National Organization for Women cry out for justice, demanding the highest quality care for abortive women?

Why wouldn’t the Democratic Party demand stringent oversight of all medical facilities, including those which cater specifically to the needs of women?

If they truly care about women, as they claim, I’d say they’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do.

Image:  By Paris 16 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (], via Wikimedia Commons

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Korou

    I think that the reason people on the pro-choice side oppose these laws is because
    they were not really passed in the interests of increasing women’s health care, but in the interests of placing needless burdens on clinics so that they would be forced to close down.
    Truthfully, I’m not an expert and hadn’t heard about this case before I read about it here, but this article does a good job of explaining it:

    The fact that abortion clinics had absolutely no health and safety issues before this law was passed argues strongly that the motivation for passing it was in order to stop abortions, not to make them safer.
    “…So about three-fourths of all abortions in Texas are performed in clinics that don’t meet Republicans’ standards. And, according to the data from the health department, there’s no evidence suggesting they are any more unsafe because of it. There were no reported deaths from abortion-related complications in 2011. There were no deaths in 2010 or 2009, either. In fact, just five abortion-related deaths have been reported in Texas since 2002. When taking into account the abortions performed in the state between 2002 and 2011, that’s a 0.0000801 percent mortality rate — not exactly a crisis of women’s health.
    On the other hand, 116 women died of pregnancy-related complications in 2011 alone.”

    • kathyschiffer

      Korou, as always, I am amazed that you spend any time here at all–if you’re also looking for information from ThinkProgress. I’m going to ask you the same question I posed in my article: Don’t you CARE about women?

      I mean, why wouldn’t you demand the best quality care for women, just as you’d expect to find at a walk-in clinic or ophthalmologist’s office or anywhere else? These sub-standard clinics are the Dollar Store of the health care industry, and you don’t care?

      • Korou

        I was rather surprised when I read your answer. You explicitly asked for an explanation and I gave it to you.
        Yes, I do care about the health treatment of women. That’s why I was very glad to find that there were in fact no health issues at the clinics which are being closed and threatened with closure.
        This leads me to believe, as I already said, that the laws threatening these clinics are not motivated by a concern for women’s health. A 0.000081% mortality rate – that certainly doesn’t sound like “the dollar store of the health care industry”, or the kind of thing to trigger investigations and sweeping new laws.
        But innocent children being murdered in clinics? That sounds like the kind of thing that some politicians would be willing to pass dubious or deceptive laws in order to stop.
        And wouldn’t you say they would be right to do so, since you believe that you believe abortion to be the killing of an innocent human being? Wouldn’t it have been a good thing if in, say, Nazi Germany, some bureaucrat with a Schindler mindset had been able to shut down concentration camps because of some nitpicking regulation – say, low standards of hygiene in the officer’s mess?

        The reason I spend time here is for interesting conversation, and to find out what conservative Catholics are talking about. Once again, it was you who made the article asking for an explanation of these events. I assume that you were genuinely interested in hearing the other side of the story.